Skip to comments.Niall Ferguson Defends Newsweek Cover: Correct This, Bloggers
Posted on 08/21/2012 12:33:02 PM PDT by EveningStar
First, duck the argument. Second, nitpick. Third, vilify. Thats what Niall Ferguson says liberal bloggers did after reading his Newsweek story on Obamas record. Here, he offers a point-by-point defense of his argument.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
This SHOULD be the discussion all this week, but instead, that stupid fool running for senator in MO decided to screw everything up.
Can you or anybody else quote the article for us? I don’t want to give The Daily Mephistopheles / Daily Satan / Daily Beast any traffic.
Oh oh. Liberal bloggers really asked for it. Fool for challenging Niall Ferguson.
Posting full articles without permission is theft.
Here he is by phone with bloomberg and a transcript via ZeroHedge:
No, posting full articles without permission is quite possibly a violation of a state-granted monopoly called "copyright". The notion that it is "theft" is highly dubious, in that unlike theft, the posting of a copy does not deprive anyone of their copy. The comparison of plagiarism, in which copies of someone else's work are passed off as one's own, with theft is more apt, as one wrongly receives credit and deprives the actual author of credit, but this analogy has been wrongly appropriated as a propagandistic tool by rent-seeking commercial interests in publishing industries for the reification of copyright as property, even in cases where no plagiarism is committed because the actual author is credited with the work.
I suspect Prof. Ferguson would be perfectly happy to have properly attributed copies of his writings on current politics generated and spread all over the internet. It is only the rent-seeking publishers who might object to the violation of their monopoly rights with a bogus claim of "theft".